ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ill. Judge Refuses to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman denied a motion by Abbott Laboratories Inc. to dismiss claims it misled workers out of retirement benefits when it spun off its hospital equipment business in 2004 into Hospira Inc., Reuters reports. He, however, dismissed Hospira's motion to dismiss the claim because Hospira was not yet in existence when the transaction was made.

The ruling adds a fourth claim accusing Abbot and Hospira of deliberately hiding from pension plan participants "that their long-standing defined benefit pension plan would be frozen at year-end 2004 and that Hospira would not provide any retiree medical benefit coverage," according to court documents.

Judge Gettleman granted class-action status to the lawsuit late last year (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 6, 2006). The ruling allows the suit to cover all Abbott employees shifted to newly the created Hospira, between August 22, 2003, which is the date the spinoff was announced and April 30, 2004. Under the ruling, Hospira employees who were eligible to retire from Abbott when their jobs were eliminated are also included.

The suit was filed on November 8, 2004 by three former Abbott employees. They were represented by the law firm Sprenger & Lang PLLC and Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica. The attorneys then estimated that the number of former employees eligible to participate in the suit might exceed 10,000 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 6, 2006).

The suit claims that North Chicago-based company spun off the unit containing many of its older workers because they were near to claiming rich retirement benefits from Abbott.

The plaintiffs allege their transfer to Hospira as part of the spin-off of the company, adversely affected their employee benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement as company employees, or reinstatement as participants in the company's employee benefit plans, or an award for the employee benefits they have allegedly lost (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2005).

The suit is "Nauman, et al. v. Abbott Labs, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Robert W. Gettleman with referral to Judge Geraldine Soat Brown.

AMERICAN HOME: Suspension of Lawyers in Fen-Phen Suit Pressed--------------------------------------------------------------The Kentucky Supreme Court held a public hearing recently to consider suspending licenses of three Lexington lawyers accused of breaching their fiduciary duty when they diverted more than $20 million in the settlement of Kentucky's fen-phen lawsuits, the Herald-Leader reports.

At the hearing, chief bar counsel for the Kentucky Bar Association, Linda Gosnell, accused the lawyers of getting more than what their clients had agreed to give them by taking about $105 million and giving their clients only $74 million.

Frankfort lawyer William E. Johnson, who represents Melbourne Mills, Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion, argued that his clients knew little about the disbursement of class-action settlement funds and depended on the wisdom of then-Boone Circuit Court Judge Jay Bamberger to decide how to distribute the money.

Judge Bamberger approved the additional payments and the creation of the fund. The Judicial Conduct Commission later publicly reprimanded him for not properly following judicial procedures in making the decision.

In 2001, fen-phen maker American Home Products settled a national class action over its diet drug by paying $200 million. Three years later, in 2004, former fen-phen plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the lawyers who took their case, asking for a full accounting of settlement funds. It turned out that the three lawyers and their consultants received more money than their 431 clients.

A judge ruled in March the lawyers had breached their fiduciary duty by receiving more than their contracts allowed. Also, by diverting more than $20 million in settlement money to non-profit Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living.

According to the lawyers they used case law governing excess funds in class suits that allow for lawyers to receive additional fees and also allows for creation of a non-profit fund from those fees.

The justices have yet to issue a ruling on the temporary suspension of the three lawyers until an investigation is complete.

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overbilling Suit in Wash.---------------------------------------------------------------- Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque in Washington denied two motions that could have dismissed a lawsuit filed against American Medical Response, Inc., a subsidiary of Emergency Medical Services Corp., over its billing practices for ambulance services, The Columbian News reports.

The ruling allows Spokane residents who have used American Medical Response ambulances since 1998 to pursue state Consumer Protection Act and breach of contract claims against the company, the report said. It also allowed plaintiffs to ask a jury a year from now to award "exemplary damages" up to $10,000 for each violation and attorney fees, according to plaintiffs' lawyer Roger Reed.

The suit was filed in December by Lori E. Davis-Bacon andLorraine and Doug Bacon, all of Spokane, alleging the company overbills hundreds of patients and insurance companies. The plaintiffs alleged "unfair and deceptive business practices" in the city where the company has exclusive contract.

The court has certified a class in this case in June, but the size and membership of the class has not yet been determined, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

In its argument to dismiss the suit, the company said plaintiffs had failed to prove it had engaged in deceptive business practices; and that it is the city that has the regulatory power to monitor its ambulance.

AVICI SYSTEMS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against Avici Systems, Inc., the company said at its Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint, which superseded these 12 purported securities class actions, was filed in the court. The complaint is captioned "In re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation" (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)) and names as defendants Avici, certain of the underwriters of Avici's initial public offering, and certain of Avici's officers and directors.

The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including among other things, that the underwriters of Avici's initial public offering improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of Avici's stock in the aftermarket as conditions to receive shares in Avici's IPO.

The Complaint further claims that these supposed practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in Avici's IPO prospectus and registration statement.

In addition to the complaint against Avici, various other plaintiffs have filed other substantially similar class actions against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against Avici have all been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of case management.

On July 15, 2002, Avici, together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the court dismissed without prejudice all claims against the individual current and former officers and directors who were named as defendants in the litigation, and they are no longer parties to the lawsuit.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants.

In that ruling, the court granted in part and denied in part those motions. As to the claims brought against Avici under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the court dismissed all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead these claims against Avici.

As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to Avici and as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well. The court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, Avici elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the court, this proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against Avici and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as against those defendants is continuing. It provides that the class members in the class action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.

In addition, Avici and any other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class members certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs.

Avici expects that its insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditional upon obtaining approval by the court. On Sept. 1, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to class members.

Thereafter, the court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard. After the fairness hearing, the court took under advisement whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

The company said the down shaft on the seat plate assembly can fracture, which can cause an occupant of the seat to fall.

Brunswick has received reports of 20 incidents in which the seat plate assembly has failed. Three injuries resulting from falling from a seat have been reported.

The recalled chairs and bar stools were sold under the model name Frameworx. The models affected are short table height chair model number 53-861025-000 and tall bar stool model number 57-860979-000. The model name and model numbers are not written on the chairs. The model number is only written on the original shipping carton, packing list or invoice. The chairs and bar stools have a plastic bucket-style seat bolted to a steel seat plate assembly that connects to the down tube of the seat.

These chairs and bar stools were manufactured in the United States and are being sold by distributors of Brunswick Bowling furniture selling to bowling center operators. This product was not sold to the general public. The chairs were sold from September 1995 through May 2004.

Bowling centers owning these table height chairs and bar stools have been directly notified about this recall. Owners of the bar stools and table height chairs should stop using these products immediately and contact Brunswick to receive a free repair kit.

For more information, call Brunswick at (800) 937-2695 anytime.

CAREER EDUCATION: Dismisses Recent Complaint of Securities Fraud---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for Career Education Corp. said in papers recently filed with U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago that the newest complaint filed by plaintiffs in a securities suit against the company doesn't fix defects the judge cited in the court's second dismissal in March, Bloomberg News reports.

Between Dec. 9, 2003, and Feb. 5, 2004, six purported class actions were filed on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaints alleged that in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the company's business and prospects during the putative class periods, causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claimed that executive officers John M. Larson and Patrick K. Pesch are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. Five of these lawsuits were found related to the first filed lawsuit, captioned, "Taubenfeld v. Career Education Corp., et al. (No. 03 CV 8884)," and were reassigned to the same judge.

On March 19, 2004, the court ordered these six cases consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff. On April 6, 2004, the court appointed the firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, which represents Mr. Schroeder, as lead counsel. On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss on July 30, 2004.

On Feb. 11, 2005, the company's motion to dismiss was granted, without prejudice. In addition, the court has issued an order changing the caption of this matter to "In re Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation."

On April 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss on May 20, 2005. Some time in 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted for the second time the company's motion to dismiss the action, holding that the plaintiffs had once again failed to plead a federal securities law violation against the company.

In its decision, the court gave the plaintiffs until April 17, 2006 to file a third amended complaint. Shortly before that deadline, the plaintiffs sought an extension of time, and the court granted the plaintiffs one last opportunity to file a third amended complaint by no later than May 1, 2006.

Attorneys for the defendant responded that the newest complaint failed to address the defects the judge cited in the court's second dismissal order.

The recent Bloomberg report quoted defense attorneys Mary Ellen Hennessy and Lee Ann Russo saying: "Managing a company comprised of 82 unique, accredited institutions is a complicated and issue-fraught endeavor...[b]ut complications and challenges, which are at best what plaintiffs have pleaded, do not equate to securities fraud."

The suit is "In re Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. Representing the plaintiffs are:

CISCO SYSTEMS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $91M---------------------------------------------------------------Cisco Systems, Inc., entered an agreement to resolve the consolidated shareholder class action filed in 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers.

Under the terms of the settlement, liability insurers for Cisco and its directors and officers will pay $91.75 million to the plaintiffs.

The payment will have no impact on Cisco's financial position or results of operations, as the settlement amount is within applicable insurance limits.

The agreement is subject to final documentation and court approval. The recovery, less fees and expenses, will be distributed to purchasers of Cisco common stock between Nov. 10, 1999 and Feb. 6, 2001 who timely file valid proofs of claim under procedures to be implemented by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which is overseeing the litigation.

Beginning on April 20, 2001, a number of purported shareholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its officers and directors. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have made false and misleading statements, purport to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The suit is "In re: Cisco Systems, Inc., Securities Litigation, et al., Case No. 5:01-cv-20418-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Counsel for the class is Spencer Burkholz, lead lawyer for Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Gellar, Rudman and Robbins LLP; On the Net: http://www.lerachlaw.com.

DELL INC: Recalls Notebook Batteries at Risk of Overheating-----------------------------------------------------------Dell Inc., of Round Rock, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2.7 million Dell-branded lithium-ion battery packs, with an additional 1.4 million battery packs sold outside the U.S. The batteries were made with cells manufactured by Sony.

The company said these lithium-ion batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Dell has received six reports of batteries overheating, resulting in property damage to furniture and personal effects. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled batteries were sold with or sold separately, to be used with these Dell notebook computers:

"Dell" and one of the following markings are printed on the batteries: "Made in Japan," "Made in China," or "Battery Cell Made in Japan Assembled in China." The identification number for each battery appears on a white sticker.

These batteries were manufactured in Japan and China by Sony Energy Devices Corp. and are sold through Dell's Web site, phone and direct sales as part of a service replacement program, and catalogs from April 2004 through July 2006. The computers with these batteries sold for between $500 and $2850 and individual batteries sold for between $60 and $180.

Pictures of the recalled lithium-ion batteries and the notebooks that they are possibly sold with:

Consumers are advised to stop using these recalled batteries immediately and contact Dell to receive a replacement battery. Consumers can continue to use the notebook computers safely by turning the system off, ejecting the battery, and using the AC adapter and power cord to power the system until the replacement battery is received.

DIVERSIA CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement in a consolidated securities class action against Diversia Corp.

In December 2002, the company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and now captioned "In re Diversa Corp. Initial Public Offering Sec. Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-9699."

In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company and certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering violated Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegations that the company's registration statement and prospectus prepared in connection with the company's IPO failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the Underwriters.

The complaint also contains claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on investors. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

This action is related to "In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92," in which similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies that conducted IPOs of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000.

On Jan. 7, 2003, the IPO Case against the company was assigned to Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York, before whom the IPO Cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Sections 11 and 15 claims against the company and the company's officers and directors, and granting the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against the company without leave to amend. The court similarly dismissed the Sections 10(b) and 20 claims against two of the company's officers and directors without leave to amend, but denied the motion to dismiss these claims against one officer/director.

In June 2003, issuer defendants and plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice and full release of the issuers and their officers and directors from all further liability resulting from plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the issuers may have against the underwriters.

The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum of $1 billion from the underwriters in the IPO Cases and related litigation, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by each participating issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any shortfall in the plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.

In the event, for example, the plaintiffs recover nothing in judgment against the underwriter defendants in the IPO Cases and the issuers' insurers therefore become liable to the plaintiffs for an aggregate of $1 billion pursuant to the settlement proposal, the pro rata liability of the company's insurers, with respect to us, would be $5 million, assuming that 200 issuers which approved the settlement proposal, and their insurers, were operating and financially viable as of the settlement date.

The company is covered by a claims-made liability insurance policy that would satisfy the company's insurers' pro rata liability described in this hypothetical example.

In June 2004, the company executed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a comprehensive order, and directed that notice of the settlement be published and mailed to class members beginning Nov. 15, 2005.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a final fairness hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. A decision is expected this summer, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Diversa Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-9699," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.

The company said the counterfeit extension cords could have undersized wire and substandard insulation, which can cause overheating, resulting in a possible shock hazard. No injuries were reported.

The recalled cords are green, measure 6 feet long, are intended for indoors and have a three-outlet extension. Attached to the cord is a silver counterfeit UL holographic label marked "09/01 E157848 UL LISTED CORD SET BW-3045 13A 125V 1625W".

These counterfeit extension cords were manufactured in China, imported by Greenbrier International Inc., of Chesapeake, Virginia, and are being sold at Dollar Tree Stores, Dollar Bill$, and Dollar Express nationwide from November 2005 through May 2006 for $1.

EDINA REALTY: Accused of Overcharging Title Insurance Customers---------------------------------------------------------------Edina Realty Title Inc. is facing a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court over alleged systematic overcharging of customers for title insurance, the Star Tribune reports.

The suit claims that Edina Realty, acting as an agent for Chicago Title Insurance Co., charged customers full price on title policies for homes that previously had been covered by title insurance.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Edina Realty overcharged its customers for title insurance by not giving them 40 percent "reissue" discounts that they were entitled to.

According to the complaint, Chicago Title's rates, as posted with the Minnesota Commerce Department, called for a discounted price on such reissue policies, but Edina Realty did not tell customers that such a discount was available.

Edina Realty lawyer, Lewis Remele, said Edina Realty simply was acting as an agent for Chicago Title and was following its guidelines requiring that a copy of the previous title policy be produced before a reissue discount would be given.

But according to the complaint, reissue rates are supposed to apply to any property previously covered by title insurance, no matter which company issued the policy. That means the reissue discount should apply automatically to virtually all homes that previously had mortgages, because lenders require title insurance as a condition of granting a mortgage.

Mr. Remele said it's not clear how many Edina Realty Title customers might be covered by the suit, although the complaint said Edina Realty has issued title policies for more than 5,000 Minnesota transactions a year since 1999, the period covered by the suit. But Mr. Remele said the issue "only involves about 3,000 customers that Edina Realty handled through Chicago Title."

EL PASO: Continues to Face Colo. ERISA, Age Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------El Paso Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action over pension laws violations filed against it in the U.S. District Court for District of Colorado, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit alleges violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a result of the company's change from a final average earnings formula pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.

EL PASO: Continues to Face Multiple Natural Gas Litigations-----------------------------------------------------------El Paso Corp., and certain of its affiliates, along with other energy firms remain as defendants in several sets of lawsuits over alleged natural gas price manipulations.

Beginning in August 2003, lawsuits have been filed against El Paso Marketing L.P. (EPM) over allegations that the company, EPM and other energy companies conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by providing false price information to industry trade publications that published gas indices.

The first cases have been consolidated in federal court in New York for all pre-trial purposes under the caption, "In re: Gas Commodity Litigation."

In September 2005, the court certified the class to include all persons who purchased or sold New York Mercantile Exchange in New York natural gas futures between Jan. 1, 2000 and Dec. 31, 2002.

Other defendants in the case have negotiated tentative settlements with the plaintiffs that have been approved by the court.

EPM and the remaining defendants have petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the class certification order.

The second set of cases involves similar allegations on behalf of commercial and residential customers. These cases have been transferred to a multi-district litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for Nevada, as "In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation." These cases have been dismissed and have been appealed.

The third set of cases also involves similar allegations on behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas. These include the purported class actions:

-- "Ever-Bloom Inc. v. AEP Energy Services Inc. et al." (filed in federal court for the Eastern District of California in June 2005);

-- "Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in July 2005);

-- "Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in September 2005); and

-- "Breckenridge, et al v. Oneok Inc., et al." (filed in state court in Denver County, Colorado in May 2006).

The Leggett case was removed but then remanded to state court. The Breckenridge case has been removed and conditionally transferred to the MDL proceeding in federal district court in Nevada. The remaining three cases have all been transferred to the MDL proceeding. Similar motions to dismiss have either been filed or are to be filed in these cases as well.

EL PASO: Parties Seek Resolution to Tex. ERISA Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------Parties in the class action, "William H. Lewis, III v. El Paso Corp., et al.," which was filed against El Paso Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas are working to settle the case, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the company's direct and indirect communications with participants in the El Paso Corp. Retirement Savings Plan included misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

It was subsequently amended to include allegations relating to the company's reporting of natural gas and oil reserves.

In June 2006, the parties participated in a mediated settlement negotiation.

The suit is "Lewis, et al v. EL Paso Corp., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-04860," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Lynn N. Hughes.

EL PASO: Settles Multiple Lawsuits in Okla. Over Shallow Wells--------------------------------------------------------------El Paso Corp. along with Burlington Resources, Inc., settled several class actions filed against it in Oklahoma state courts over shallow wells.

Both actions were filed in 1997 in the District Court of Washita County, State of Oklahoma and subsequently consolidated by the court. The consolidated class action has been settled pursuant to a settlement agreement executed in January 2006.

A third action, "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Co.," was filed in October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma asserting similar claims as to specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.

All the claims in this action have also been settled as part of the January 2006 settlement. The settlement of all these claims is subject to court approval.

EL PASO: Unit Faces La. Suit for Hurricane Katrina, Rita Damages----------------------------------------------------------------An El Paso Corp. affiliate was named as defendant in a consolidated lawsuit over hurricane damages that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit was filed against all oil and gas pipeline and production companies that dredged pipeline canals, installed transmission lines or drilled for oil and gas in the marshes of coastal Louisiana.

Both assert that the defendants caused erosion and land loss, which destroyed critical protection against hurricane surges and winds and was a substantial cause of the loss of life and destruction of property.

The first lawsuit alleges damages associated with Hurricane Katrina. The second lawsuit alleges damages associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The has court consolidated the two lawsuits.

The suit is "Barasich et al v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.

The suits allege that the company violated DPPA by obtaining driver registration information from the State of Florida for use in its marketing efforts (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2, 2006).

Under the settlement, the company did not admit any liability or fault, but agreed to the certification of a conditional settlement class, solely for settlement purposes. The agreement is subject to preliminary and final court approval.

Payout to each eligible claimant is not to exceed $160. Fidelity Federal has agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees not more than $10,000,000 plus reasonable expenses of not more than $120,000.

Fidelity Federal will pay class representative James Kehoe not more than $10,000, and class representatives Timothy Neilsen and Timothy G. Martin not more than $3,000 each for their participation.

Additionally, Fidelity Federal has agreed to certain injunctive relief, including certifying that Fidelity Federal did not keep or maintain any data obtained from the State of Florida, providing that Fidelity Federal shall not disclose or sell any such data, and agreeing to a privacy audit, the cost of which shall not exceed $25,000.

Fidelity Federal's total costs and expense, including the payments to class members, cannot exceed $50 million.

On July 31, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement. The court set Dec. 7, 2006 as the final hearing date to approve the settlement agreement.

The suit is "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley.

GENERAL REINSURANCE: Still Faces Litigation Over ROA Insurance --------------------------------------------------------------General Reinsurance Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., remains a defendant in several lawsuits over insurance purchased through Reciprocal of America.

Doctors, hospitals and lawyers that purchased insurance through ROA or certain of its Tennessee-based risk retention groups initiated nine putative class actions against the company. These complaints seek compensatory, treble, and punitive damages in an indefinite amount.

The company is also a defendant in actions brought by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, as Deputy Receiver of ROA, the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance, as liquidator for three Tennessee risk retention groups, a federal lawsuit filed by a Missouri-based hospital group and a state lawsuit filed by an Alabama doctor that was removed to federal court.

The first of these actions was filed in March 2003 and additional actions were filed in April 2003 through June 2006.

In the action filed by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, the Commissioner is claiming damages compensation exceeding $200 million in the aggregate as against all defendants.

Twelve of these cases are collectively assigned to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for pretrial proceedings. The remaining federal action filed in June 2006 in the federal court for the Eastern District of Kentucky is the subject of a transfer request pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The company has filed motions to dismiss all of the claims against it in all the cases pending in the Tennessee federal court.

On June 12, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaints of the Virginia and Tennessee receivers.

The court granted the Tennessee receiver leave to amend her complaint within 60 days of the order. The Virginia receiver has moved for reconsideration of the dismissal and for leave to amend his complaint.

The court has not yet ruled on the company's motion to dismiss the complaints of the other plaintiffs. On June 27, 2006, the court held a hearing and announced an intention to allow document discovery to proceed in the coordinated cases.

No order permitting that discovery to proceed has yet been entered. The company has not filed a responsive pleading in the case currently pending in the Kentucky federal court, according to the Berkshire Hathaway's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A) -- http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/-- is a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business activities with the most important being insurance businesses conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis.

The suit is "In Re Reciprocal of America (ROA) Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:04-md-01551-JDB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under Judge J. Daniel Breen.

The suit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is a putative class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased publicly traded securities of American International Group (AIG) between October 1999 and March 2005.

The company and its former chief executive officer, Ronald Ferguson, are identified as defendants in this matter. The complaint alleges that AIG and certain other defendants violated federal securities laws, but does not assert any causes of action against the company or Mr. Ferguson. Plaintiffs' counsel in this action has filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint.

On June 7, 2005, the company received a second Summons and Class Action Complaint in a putative class action asserted on behalf of investors who purchased AIG securities between October 1999 and March 2005. The suit is "San Francisco Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. American International Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-4270," filed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that AIG and certain other defendants violated federal securities laws, and that the company aided and abetted securities fraud or conspired to violate federal securities laws.

Both actions have been assigned to the same judge. At a July 2005 conference, the court ruled that the plaintiffs in Case No. 04-CV-8141 would be lead plaintiffs.

On Sept. 27, 2005, the plaintiffs in Case No. 04-CV-8141 filed a Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. The complaint asserts various claims against AIG, and various of its officers, directors, investment banks and other parties. Included among the defendants are the company, Messrs. Ferguson, Napier and Houldsworth, whom the complaint defines as the General Re Defendants.

The complaint alleges that the General Re Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 through their activities in connection with the AIG transaction.

The complaint seeks damages and other relief in unspecified amounts. The General Re Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted against these defendants.

The motion was heard on April 20, 2006, and was denied by the court. General Reinsurance has answered the complaint, denying liability and asserting various affirmative defenses. No discovery has taken place, and no trial date has been scheduled, according to the Berkshire Hathaway's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge John E. Sprizzo.

Judge Barcinas held a hearing on the suit on Aug. 9, wherein he instructed attorneys in the case to submit calculations for the expected cost to the court by Aug. 23.

The government failed to pay more than 4,000 retirees COLA based on inflation, as required by a law that was in effect between 1988 and 1995.

In March, Superior Court of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas ordered the governor to calculate the amount of COLA owed to retirees, and provide that information by May 31. But instead of complying to the order, Guam filed a challenge to the court-ordered retroactive COLA increases to retirees.

Lawyers of both parties in the class action filed by Candelaria Rios, were in disagreement over the base year for the computation of payments.

The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order for the award, said it is 1990. On the other hand, the retirees' attorney said it should be 1988 as ordered by the court.

Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling, determined that the formula for most of the payout will be based on the consumer price index of 1988. The lawsuit was filed in 1993 and based on a law that was implemented in 1988 but repealed in 1995.

In the Aug. 9 hearing, the governor's attorney Daniel Benjamin raised concerns that the consumer price index was "very inflated" during the years in question because of a flawed process at the Department of Commerce.

Judge Barcinas told him to include the concern when the government submits its calculations to the court. The commerce department after 1995 started using a different formula to calculate the price index, according to him.

Meanwhile, Mr. Phillips argued against allowing anyone outside the commerce department, including the court or the governor, to change the consumer price index because the law states the cost-of-living allowance shall be based on the commerce department's figures.

Payments to retirees are estimated at between $30 million and $100 million, a previous report says.

HOSPITAL CORP: Sues Plaintiff Attorney in Kans. Consumer Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------- Hospital Corp. of America is asking a court in Wichita, Kansas, to sanction a lawyer who sued the company over allegations it intentionally understaffed registered nurses at its hospitals, WBIR.com reports.

In July, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed the consumer class action alleging HCA, the parent company of Wesley Medical Center in Wichita it operates under unsafe levels of nurse staffing (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2006).

The suit had contended that the hospital chain defrauded patients by directing its affiliated hospitals to staff its nursing units below generally accepted levels.

Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled the case involves medical malpractice that needs to be examined on an individual basis and not in a consumer class action. He also ruled that the company as a corporation could not be held liable for cases at each of its hospitals.

The judge specifically wrote in his ruling, that plaintiffs' claims are in reality medical malpractice claims, and therefore not appropriately advanced as claims for consumer protection or unjust enrichment.

Hospital Corp. is now asking that plaintiff attorney Lawrence Williamson and his clients pay nearly $400,000 in attorney's fees to the nine lawyers it hired to defend the lawsuit since April.

Mr. Williamson reported said that the motion was intended to intimidate him. He noted that Hospital Corp. asked for sanctions only after he appealed the dismissal of the case.

Case Background

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died at the company's Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas in March. She claimed that her husband died because the hospital did not have enough nurses working to care for him when he was hospitalized in 2004 (Class Action Reporter May 24, 2006).

The lawsuit asked the company to repay no less than $12.5 billion to millions of patients who have been treated at its hospitals.

The suit is "Spires v. Hospital Corporation of America, Case No. 2:06-cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral to Judge James P. O'Hara.

ILLINOIS: District U46 Continues to Face Racial Bias Lawsuit------------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys for Elgin School District U46 filed its latest reply in a racial discrimination suit filed against it in February 2005, The Courier News reports.

In March District Judge Robert Gettleman refused to certify the lawsuit, saying the complaint must be narrowed, or the plaintiff list must be expanded to accommodate all of the issues listed to get class certification. Plaintiffs in the suit filed an amended complaint on May 12. In June, the district filed a request that the lawsuit be dismissed. In July, plaintiffs attorney responded to that request and defended the suit's compliance with court requirements.

In the district's recent reply, it said the suit should be dismissed because of the ambiguity of the complaints and their irrelevance to the original claim of discrimination, among other factors. Also, it said most of those minimal allegations "are no longer relevant" because they describe experiences of the plaintiff who withdrew from the case after graduating from a U46 alternative high school.

Further, plaintiffs attorney said complaints filed by the Sifuentes, Burciaga and Montoya plaintiffs "failed to plainly state any claim."

The revised suit added two Hispanic families and an African-American family alleging unfair treatment of their children by the Elgin public schools (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006). It is filed on the behalf of 18 students and their parents: Tracy McFadden, Marielena Montoya, Griselda Burciaga, Beverly Ivy and Irma Sifuentes. The suit accuses the school district of:

-- treating minority students with hostility,

-- disproportionately referring black and Latino students to an alternative high school,

-- providing fewer academic opportunities for minorities, and

-- failing to provide proper services to Latino students with limited English proficiency.

A black family and a Hispanic family in Elgin filed the suit in 2005 to complain about the closure of Illinois Park Elementary School in 2004.

The suit plans to seek relief for all Hispanic and black students who claim they were discriminated against in assignments, transportation, school closings and educational programs.

A court hearing is set Sept. 28, 2006 to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

The suit is "McFadden et al. v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman. Representing the plaintiffs is Carol Rose Ashley of Futterman & Howard, Chtd., 122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427- 3600, E-mail: cashley@futtermanhoward.com.

INTERMAGNETICS GENERAL: Settles Suits Over Philips Holding Deal--------------------------------------------------------------- Intermagnetics General Corp. reached an agreement in principle to settle two putative class actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County, that challenged its merger agreement with Philips Holding USA Inc., subsidiary of Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V.

Philips and Intermagnetics announced the $1.3 billion deal on June 15, 2006. Afterwards, shareholders of Intermagnetics General filed two class actions in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County, challenging the company's acquisition.

The first suit is "Mohamed Farouk Gani v. Intermagnetics General Corporation, et al., No. 3884-06," filed on June 16, 2006, just a day after the deal was announced. The second suit, "Thomas Scionti v. Intermagnetics General Corporation, et al., No. 3946-06," was filed on June 20, according to the company's PREM14A filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for June 30, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2006).

On lawsuit names that company and its directors as defendants, while the other adds Royal Philips as a defendant. Mohamed Farouk Gani and Thomas Scionti filed the suits, both of which are seeking to prevent the acquisition.

Generally, the complaints allege that company directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to publicly announce an open bidding process or otherwise seek additional officers to acquire Intermagnetics, and by failing to provide full disclosure to certain material financial information.

Under the deal, the company's Latham, New York, headquarters would become the global headquarters for the MR division of Royal Philips. The company said in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission it would hold a shareholder meeting Sept. 26 in New York City to approve the merger.

The regulatory filing, which announced the settlement and the shareholder meeting, did not specify terms of the agreement. According to Larry Rulison at Timesunion.com court documents examined Friday in Albany did not indicate an official settlement had been reached or that the cases had been dismissed.

Representing the plaintiffs in the suit is Jeffrey Sherrin, an attorney with the Albany law firm O'Connell & Aronowitz; on the Net: http://www.oalaw.com.

JAKKS PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Jakks Pacific, Inc.

The complaints allege that defendants issued positive statements concerning increasing sales of its World Wrestling Entertainment licensed products which were false and misleading because the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern of commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being negatively impacted by the WWE's contentions and there was an increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or nullification of the licensing agreements with the company.

Plaintiffs also allege that the company misleadingly failed to disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs are purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct. 26, 1999 and late as Oct. 19, 2004.

The suits seek compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount. It alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants -- the company and Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett -- and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett.

KORIKA INT'L: Recalls Dried Mushrooms with Undeclared Sulfites--------------------------------------------------------------Korica International Inc. of Brooklyn, New York, in cooperation with the New York State Agriculture Commission, is recalling certain "Dried Mushrooms" due to the presence of undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites may run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this product, the company said.

The recalled "Dried Mushrooms" are packaged in a 5-ounce, uncoded, plastic bag. They were sold nationwide. They are a product of China.

Routine sampling by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the product contained high levels of sulfites, which were not declared on the label.

The consumption of 10 mg. of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 mg. or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased "Dried Mushrooms" are advised to return them to the place of purchase.

LEVEL 3: Opt Out Deadline in "Salomon Analyst" Suit Set Aug. 31---------------------------------------------------------------The securities arbitration law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. reminds all customers who acquired stocks of Level 3 Communications, Inc. and are eligible to participate in the settlement of "Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation, Case No. 02-6919," that they have until Aug. 31, 2006 to opt-out of the class.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities, beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. common stock by any method, including but not limited to in the second market, in exchange for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a registration statement or through the exercise of options including options acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

As part of the settlement of the class action, Smith Barney has agreed to pay the class $10.25 million. However, Klayman & Toskes said this amount represents only a fraction of Level 3's market capital losses, which were in excess of $30 billion during the class period of Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001. Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim, it said.

Case Background

Beginning August 2002, at least seven putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the defendants, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of purchasers of shares of Level 3 common stock between Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Weiss & Lurie and Beatie and Osborn LLP as lead counsel.

LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Stayed Until October 2006----------------------------------------------------------------A conference to discuss the status of the class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Bernard L. Schwartz, former chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Loral Space & Communications Inc. (New Loral) has been stayed until October 2006.

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky filed a purported class action complaint against in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses. It alleges:

-- that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to state material facts about the company's financial condition relating to the sale of assets to Intelsat and its Chapter 11 filing; and

-- that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (Old Loral).

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with him.

In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz with substantially similar allegations were consolidated into the Beleson case.

In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was denied by the court. Defendant filed an answer in March 2004.

In January 2006, the case was stayed for six months. A conference to discuss the status of the case scheduled for July 2006 has now been adjourned until October 2006.

Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only against one of its officers, the company believes, although no assurance can be given, that, to the extent that any award is ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the defendant.

The suit is "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-06051-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.

LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Stayed Until October 2006--------------------------------------------------------------A conference to discuss the status of several securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain officers of Loral Space & Communications Inc. (New Loral) has been stayed until October 2006.

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed a purported class action complaint against Bernard L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses. It alleges:

-- that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to state material facts about Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s (Old Loral) financial condition relating to the restatement in 2003 of the financial statements for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for certain general and administrative expenses and the alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction with APT Satellite Company Ltd.; and

-- that each of the defendants is secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Old Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with them.

In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was denied by the court. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint in December 2004.

In January 2006, the case was stayed for six months. A conference to discuss the status of the case scheduled for July 2006 has now been adjourned until October 2006.

Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only against certain of its officers, the company believe, although no assurance can be given, that to the extent that any award is ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the defendants.

Former city attorney Ron Doyle, Bob Deuel, Ben Miller and Chuck Steinberg filed the civil suit in U.S. District Court seeking to represent a potential class of hundreds of other retirees who were denied continued health insurance benefits starting in 1990.

The suit asks for unspecified amount of compensation for the difference between the cost of their health insurance premiums and the cost of city employees' premiums; compensation for emotional distress; and punitive damages against the city manager for discontinuing the practice of allowing retirees the same insurance as employees.

The city discontinued health insurance coverage to police officer retirees in 1990. It did the same to then management-level employees in 2001. Now, about 300 of the 440 current employees are not offered continued health insurance into retirement.

The recalled Roasted Barley are sold in 3 oz., 1/2 lb., 5 lb. and 10 lb. clear plastic bags, with or without labels, were sold in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Georgia and Columbus, Ohio. The bags with labels identify the product as Elsa Kolo Roasted Barley.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product, according to the company.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Elsa Kolo Roasted Barley should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 214-221-3123.

MICROSOFT CORP: Fla. Schools to Get $80M in Technology Vouchers--------------------------------------------------------------- Florida's needy schools will get more than $80 million to buy computers, software and other services as part of the settlement of antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft Corp., according to state Education Commissioner John Winn.

Microsoft agreed in 2003 to settle a class action alleging it violated Florida antitrust laws through anticompetitive practices that increased the prices of its licenses for MS-DOS, Windows, Word, Excel and Office software purchased from Nov. 16, 1995, through Dec. 31, 2002. The suit was filed in Florida Circuit Court in Miami. Microsoft denied the allegations but agreed to settle for a maximum of $202 million.

Florida consumers and businesses received vouchers to purchase computer hardware and software regardless of brand if they had purchased Microsoft items covered by the agreement. Microsoft also agreed to donate half of any unclaimed benefits to Florida schools in which at least half the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. The benefits will be in the form of vouchers that can be used to receive reimbursements for purchases of any manufacturer's computers running any operating system and software used with those products.

According to Commissioner Winn's announcement, Broward County schools will get as much as $6.9 million. There are 120 schools eligible in Broward. They include Stranahan High in Fort Lauderdale, Hallandale Elementary, Bair Middle School in Sunrise and Driftwood Elementary in Hollywood.

Treasure Coast school districts will get $2.3 million. Of that, Indian River County is expected to receive $472,756. Those eligible are: the Alternative Center for Education, Oslo and Sebastian River middle schools, Fellsmere, Pelican Island, Citrus, Dodgertown, Vero Beach, Thompson and Highlands elementary schools, the now-closed Indian River Academy Charter School and the exceptional student education department.

Tampa Bay schools will receive more than $11.5 million. Of those, 150 are in Hillsborough County, 38 are in Pasco County and 73 are in Pinellas County. Hillsborough County will receive $6.8 million.

Palm Beach County schools are eligible for $3.7 million. St. Lucie County public schools' share is $1.2 million.

OKLAHOMA: Lawsuit Over Hissom Memorial Back to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has ruled that a federal judge in Tulsa, Oklahoma should review the details of a permanent injunction ordered in 2002 in a class action against the defunct Hissom Memorial Center in Sand Springs, according to the Tulsa World.

The suit was filed in 1985 by Homeward Bound Inc., a group of parents of Hissom residents claiming that the center had become an unsafe, inadequate environment for people with developmental disabilities. The suit named as defendants the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority and the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services.

U.S. Senior District Judge James Ellison of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ordered in 1987 that Hissom be closed and its residents transferred into community-based homes.

On Feb. 1, 2005, Ellison entered a permanent injunction that ended the court's active supervision over the case. Under it, he allowed plaintiffs to return to federal court to seek enforcement of the permanent injunction if the defendants failed to deliver appropriate services. An important condition for the case to be retaken is for the plaintiffs to show that such actions injured the class as a whole.

In recent developments, plaintiffs' are seeking appellate court intervention for a permanent injunction to ensure that individualized system of community supports and services will continue for class members. Plaintiffs were not seeking to reinstate "active supervision" by the district court, plaintiff attorney Louis Bullock said.

In an April appellate court filing, Mr. Bullock said "as a whole" limitation on enforcement "effectively terminates the primary goal of the parties to create a permanent injunction.

Leaders of AUSWR is appealing to the Colorado Court of Appeals a decision by a trial judge to award plaintiff attorneys the full amount they requested in the settlement of the "U S WEST Shareholder Dividend" class action.

The suit was filed on behalf of the public stockholders of U S WEST, Inc. against U S WEST's former directors, Qwest Communications International, Inc., and Qwest Chief Executive Joseph P. Nacchio. The case concerns the nonpayment of U S WEST's second quarter 2000 dividend that U S WEST announced it would pay to shareholders of record on June 30, 2000.

In early June 2000, when U S WEST announced plans to pay a second quarter 2000 dividend, U S WEST was in the final stages of completing the terms of the merger agreement with Qwest. Mr. Nacchio and U S WEST Chief Executive Solomon D. Trujillo exchanged testy letters about the situation, according to a statement by the retirees' association.

Mr. Nacchio allegedly made it clear that he did not want the dividend paid and he considered the planned dividend payment to be a breach of the merger agreement. Ultimately, the shareholder dividend was not paid, resulting in a savings of approximately $273 million, the statement said. The nonpayment of the U S WEST shareholder dividend resulted in the Brody litigation filed in Denver County District Court.

In June 2005, on the eve of the trial of the case, the parties agreed to cancel the trial and enter into a class action settlement agreement. A Settlement Fund was established in the amount of $50 million -- half paid by U S WEST's directors' and officers' liability insurance companies, the other half paid by Qwest out of operating revenues.

The Settlement Fund was contemplated to be first used to pay the expenses of sending out the class notice and claim form. Then, it would be used to pay attorneys' fees. The attorneys requested payment of $15 million in fees, plus approximately $1.3 million for expenses and costs. When AUSWR and several of organizational leaders learned that the attorney's were seeking such an exorbitant amount, objections were filed, asking the trial court to award a much more reasonable reduced amount.

Nevertheless, the trial court judge awarded the attorneys the full amount they requested -- $15 million in fees and another $1.3 million for expenses and costs.

AUSWR's leaders decided to appeal this ruling before the Colorado Court of Appeals. The notice of appeal was filed on Sept. 21, 2005.

During the course of preparing AUSWR's opening appellant brief, a thorough review was conducted of the 5,282 page trial court record. AUSWR discovered that soon after the decision was made to avoid paying the U S WEST shareholder dividend which would have cost $273 million, an agreement was executed on June 29, 2000 -- one day before the merger closed --- to provide Mr. Trujillo a lucrative severance payout valued in excess of $70 million, a statement by AUSWR said. The severance package included $5.5 million for Mr. Trujillo to use to pay any charges for personal use of corporate executive jet services.

The Settlement Fund obtained in the Brody case has already paid the $15 million fee award, plus costs to the attorneys. But, it is likely the balance of the Settlement Fund will not be paid out to any claimants until the appeal of the attorney's fee award and other issues are resolved. If the attorney's fee award is reduced, the attorneys will have to reimburse the Settlement Fund, plus interest. Meanwhile, the Settlement Fund will continue to accrue interest.

RJR TOBACCO: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in Kansas----------------------------------------------------------All state court cases filed on behalf of indirect tobacco purchasers against RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., an operating segment of Reynolds American, Inc., and other cigarette manufacturers have been dismissed, except for one case pending in Kansas.

Wholesalers' and Consumers' Cases

A suit filed by tobacco wholesalers and consumers in federal and state courts alleges that defendants combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices statutes.

In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendants.

The federal cases against the defendants were consolidated and sent by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The court certified a nationwide class of direct purchasers on Jan. 27, 2001. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the consolidated federal cases on July 11, 2002, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that decision on Sept. 22, 2003.

As of July 14, 2006, all state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers have been dismissed, except for one case pending in Kansas. The Kansas court granted class certification on Nov. 15, 2001.

A New Mexico court granted class certification on May 14, 2003, but granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on June 30, 2006.

Growers' & Allotment Holders' Case

On Feb. 16, 2000, the company and other cigarette manufacturers and others were named an antitrust class-action complaint, "DeLoach v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a class of all tobacco growers and tobacco allotment holders.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants conspired to fix the price of tobacco leaf and to destroy the federal government's tobacco quota and price support program.

On Nov. 30, 2000, the case was moved to U. S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. In May 2003, the plaintiffs reached a court-approved settlement with Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and other cigarette manufacturer defendants, but not the company.

The settling defendants agreed to pay $210 million to the plaintiffs, of which Brown & Williamson's share was $23 million, to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees as set by the court, and to purchase a minimum amount of U.S. leaf for 10 years, expressed as both a percentage of domestic requirements and as a minimum number of pounds per year.

On April 22, 2004, RJR Tobacco and the plaintiffs settled, and the court approved that settlement on March 21, 2005. Under that settlement, RJR Tobacco paid $33 million into a settlement fund, which included costs and attorneys fees.

RJR Tobacco also agreed to purchase annually a minimum of 90 million pounds, including the assumed obligation of Brown & Williamson, of domestic green leaf flue-cured and burley tobacco combined for the next 10 years, beginning with the 2004 crop year.

The obligation to purchase leaf was extended an additional year because the federal government eliminated the tobacco price quota and price support program at the end of 2005.

One of those suits is "Blankenship v. American Tobacco Co.," the first tobacco-related medical monitoring class action to be certified and to reach trial. A West Virginia state court jury sided with RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and other cigarette manufacturers on Nov. 14, 2001. The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendants on May 6, 2004.

In another case, "Lowe v. Philip Morris, Inc.," an Oregon state court judge dismissed the medical monitoring complaint on Nov. 4, 2003, for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs appealed, and oral argument before the Oregon Court of Appeals occurred on Sept. 26, 2005. A decision is pending, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

On Nov. 5, 1998, in the suit, "Scott v. American Tobacco Co.," a Louisiana state appeals court affirmed the certification of a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.

On Feb. 26, 1999, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for review. Jury selection began on June 18, 2001 and was completed on Sept. 23, 2002. Opening statements occurred on Jan. 21, 2003.

On July 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, on the plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring and found that cigarettes were not defectively designed.

In addition, however, the jury made certain findings against the defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., on claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking cessation.

With respect to these findings, this portion of the trial did not determine liability as to any class member or class representative.

What primarily remained in the case was a class-wide claim, that the defendants pay for a program to help people stop smoking. On March 31, 2004, phase two of the trial began to address the scope and cost of smoking cessation programs. On May 21, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591 million on the class claim for a smoking cessation program.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond -- pursuant to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million collectively for multistate settlement agreement signatories -- and noticed their appeal. RJR Tobacco posted $25 million -- the portions for RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. -- towards the bond.

Oral argument occurred on April 12, 2006. The parties filed post-argument briefs on April 28, 2006.

SILICON IMAGE: Calif. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaint----------------------------------------------------------------Silicon Image, Inc. seeks the dismissal of a third consolidated amended complaint in the securities class action, "Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and Robert Gargus," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from Oct. 19, 2004 to Jan. 24, 2005.

Commenced on Jan. 31, 2005, the lawsuit alleged that the company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged misstatements of material facts and violated certain provisions of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. On July 27, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint no longer named Mr. Gargus as an individual defendant, but added Dr. David Lee as an individual defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class period from June 25, 2004 to April 22, 2005. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 26, 2005.

Plaintiffs subsequently received leave to file, and did file, a second consolidated amended complaint (second consolidated amended complaint) on Dec. 8, 2005. The second consolidated amended complaint extends the end of the class period from April 22, 2005 to Oct. 13, 2005 and adds additional factual allegations under the same causes of action against us, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee. The complaint also adds a new plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 9, 2006. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on April 10, 2006 and defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May 19, 2006.

On June 21, 2006 the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended complaint by the July 21, 2006 court slated deadline. Defendants' response to that complaint is currently due to be filed on or before Sept. 1, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine M. Chesney.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement of Racial Bias Suits to Cost $11.4M------------------------------------------------------------Toyota Motor Credit Corp. is working to settle several purported class actions filed against it in California federal and state courts alleging race discrimination in relation to its pricing practices.

A class action, "Baltimore v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 2000. It claims that the company's pricing practices discriminate against African-Americans and Hispanics.

These two additional cases were subsequently filed and are now pending in the state courts in California:

They were respectively filed in the Superior Court of California Alameda County in April 2003 and in the Superior Court of the State of California in August 2003. Both contain similar allegations claiming discrimination against minorities.

Various individuals have brought the cases. Injunctive relief is being sought in all three and they also include a claim for actual damages in an unspecified amount.

Recently, the parties reached an agreement to settle these cases. The settlement is pending approval by the court.

Under the settlement, the company agreed to stop purchasing contracts with markups greater than amounts approved under the settlement and to include disclosures on Toyota Motor's contracts that explain that the finance charge may be negotiable and that the dealer may keep part of the finance charge.

-- contribute $750,000 to non-profit entities for consumer education purposes with a focus on minorities;

-- pay $95,000 in damages;

-- pay up to $10,600,000 in attorneys' fees and costs; and

-- on submission of a valid claim, provide eligible class members with either a certificate of credit applicable to their next financing with Toyota Motor in amounts ranging from $50 to $400 or a check in amounts ranging from $25 to $225, depending upon the amount of their payment over the applicable buy rate or, in certain circumstances, the time their contracts were assigned to the company.

The suit is "Baltimore, et al. v. Toyota Motor Credit, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05564-NM-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Nora M. Manella with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

BROADCOM CORP: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing------------------------------------------------------------Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock and other securities of Broadcom Corp. between July 21, 2005 and July 13, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that Broadcom and certain of its officers and directors are charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 19(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On July 14, 2006, Broadcom announced that it would record more than $750 million in added expenses and restate its past earnings related to the illegal backdating of stock options. Prior to any news of options backdating reaching in the market, shares of Broadcom traded at slightly above $40.00 per share and, thereafter, shares traded down to approximately $27.50 per share -- a rapid decline of over 31%.

Options pricing backdating occurs when options grants to senior officers or directors of public companies are made at prices lower than the trading price of the stock on the date such options are granted. The undisclosed backdating of options violates generally accepted accounting principles.

Interested parties may request the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff no later than Oct. 12, 2006.

CENTENE CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Stock Suit Filing--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announces that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all securities purchasers of Centene Corp. from April 25, 2006 to July 17, 2006.

The Complaint charges Centene and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Centene is a leading multi-line healthcare enterprise that provides programs and related services to individuals receiving benefits under Medicaid.

According to the Complaint, defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls to properly track costs; and

-- that, as a result of the above, the company's statements concerning Centene's financial performance were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On July 18, 2006, Centene announced preliminary financial results for the second quarter of 2006. Additionally, Centene announced that it was revising its 2006 guidance downward, approximately 38 percent from previous guidance.

On this news, shares of Centene plummeted $7.60, or 36.1 percent, to close, on July 18, 2006, at $13.60 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may no later than Oct. 2, 2006, move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

IMAX CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all common stock purchasers of IMAX Corp. from Feb. 17, 2006 through Aug. 9, 2006.

The Complaint charges IMAX and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

-- specifically, that the company recognized revenue in the fourth quarter of 2005 from at least ten theatres before the theatres had opened;

-- that the company sought to manipulate its financial results because it desired to attract entities interested in buying or merging with the company;

-- that the company's financial statements were materially inflated;

-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

-- that the company's financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On Aug. 9, 2006, after the market closed, IMAX shocked investors when the company announced that it was in the process of responding to an informal inquiry from the SEC regarding the company's timing of revenue recognition, including its application of multiple element arrangement accounting in its revenue recognition for theatre systems.

On this news, shares of IMAX plummeted $3.90, or 40.5 percent, to close, on Aug. 10, 2006, at $5.73 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may no later than Oct. 10, 2006, move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Faces Securities Violations Lawsuit in Fla.--------------------------------------------------------------Parlux Fragrances, Inc. and its top executives are named defendants in a lawsuit filed by a shareholder over alleged various securities violations, including misleading shareholders about the company's financial position, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

The lawsuit claims that the company and two top managers issued "false and misleading statements" that inflated the company's stock price to trade at more than $37 per share (before a stock split) between Feb. 8 and Aug. 10, 2006.

Specifically, the suit, which seeks class-action status, contends that Parlux, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ilia Lekach, and Chief Financial Officer Frank Buttacavoli issued "highly positive statements" in an effort to create the impression that Parlux's revenues were growing and the company was well positioned to generate strong profits.

The complaint alleges that the two top managers sold millions of dollars worth of Parlux shares near peak performance, labeling the sales as "unusual."

Beginning in June, the company issued public statements announcing, "The truth about the company's declining sales and accounting issues were disclosed," the lawsuit says.

In June, Parlux was named defendant in a purported shareholder's class action filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida over the proposal by PF Acquisition of Florida LLC to acquire all of the outstanding common stock of the company (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006).

On June 14, 2006, the company's board of directors received an unsolicited letter from company chairman and chief executive, Mr. Ilia Lekach, representing PFA, pertaining to the possible acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of the company at a proposed price of $29.00 ($14.50 after the Stock Split) per share in cash, representing a premium of 55% over the closing price of the company's common stock on June 13, 2006.

On June 21, 2006, the company was served with a shareholder's class action complaint that was filed by Glen Hutton, purporting to act on behalf of other public stockholders of the company.

The class action names the company as defendant, along with company directors Ilia Lekach, Frank A. Buttacavoli, Glenn Gopman, Esther Egozi Choukroun, David Stone, Jaya Kader Zebede and Isaac Lekach.

SCOTTISH RE: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Scottish Re Group Ltd. between Feb. 17, 2005 and July 28, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions concerning Scottish Re's financial health and business prospects.

Defendants also engaged in a concerted scheme to cover up serious operational and financial problems. In February 2006, the company reported strong earnings for the 2005 fourth quarter, and stated that this positive momentum would continue going forward.

In early May 2006, Scottish Re announced that it had refinanced, at favorable rates, all of its regulatory reserves for the business acquired in its acquisition of ING Re, Scottish Re's reinsurance business.

The company then reported reduced earnings for the first quarter of 2006, but dismissed it as temporary, and certainly not a cause for major concern.

However, on July 31, 2006, before the market opened, Defendants shocked investors with news that:

-- that for the second quarter ended June 30, 2006, contrary to the company's earlier positive guidance, Scottish Re expected to report a net operating loss of an astounding $130 million, of which $112 million was due to the valuation of allowances on deferred tax assets;

-- that the company would suspend its ordinary share dividend;

-- that the company had engaged Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns to assist Scottish Re with evaluating strategic alternatives and potential sources of capital; and

-- that results for the remainder of the year would be negatively affected.

On this news the company's share prices plummeted from $16.00 to $3.99, a 75% decline, on unusually heavy trading volume.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set forth above, the market price of Scottish Re common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of the stock in purchasing Scottish Re common stock. Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said shares, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

The case name is "Hickock v. Scottish Re Group Ltd., et al." Interested parties may request the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by Oct. 2, 2006.

WITNESS SYSTEMS: Kahn Gauthier Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, against Witness Systems, Inc., and its executives on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock and other securities of Witness Systems between April 23, 2004, and Aug. 11, 2006.

Executives named in the suit are David B. Gould, Nicholas Discombe, William Evans, Joel G. Katz, Thomas J. Crotty, and Loren Wimpfheimer

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that they had engaged in the backdating of stock options grants to certain officers of the company and by failing to account properly for expenses arising from the backdating.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Finally, the complaint asserts that one or more of the defendants engaged in substantial and suspicious insider trading while in possession of material, non-public knowledge of the alleged backdating scheme.

On July 27, 2006, defendant Evans, the company's Chief Financial Officer, disclosed that the company was reviewing its stock options grants.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the company announced that its Board of Directors had formed a special committee to investigate the stock option practices because the company had identified some "discrepancies."

The company delayed the filing of its Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, pending the outcome of the investigation. The company admitted that it "believes it will need to record additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense in prior periods . . . (which) will total approximately $10 million."

As a result of the internal investigation, the Board stated that the company's previously issued financial statements from February 2000 through June 30, 2006, should no longer be relied upon.

Just three days later, on Aug. 11, 2006, the company disclosed that it intended to restate its prior financials and revealed that Nasdaq informed it on Aug. 11 that the company may be subject to delisting as a result of the matters disclosed thus far.

The price of Witness Systems common stock has fallen from its July 27, 2006, closing price of $18.19 per share to as low as $12.76 per share. The stock closed at $12.91 per share on Aug. 11, 2006.

Interested parties may no later than Oct. 16, 2006, move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.